I think studies have suggested in so many different ways that a high level of muscular effort is a fundamental requirement for gains in stength, speed, and hypertrophy that it really isn't a seperate question being asked on it's own.

So why does 3 reps over and over @8RM work? It's not maximal effort but certainly not low effort either. It's also not optimal for strength nor hypertrophy, at least in the short term, but probably a pragmatic compromise between the two that also has recovery and longevity advantages, which may become more important factors over the longer term.

So why does 3 reps over and over @8RM work? It's not maximal effort but certainly not low effort either. It's also not optimal for strength nor hypertrophy, at least in the short term, but probably a pragmatic compromise between the two that also has recovery and longevity advantages, which may become more important factors over the longer term.

Are you suggesting that this amount of effort (3r@80%) is superior in the long run, even though it may fail to deliver short-term gains?

Going back to your article... have you ever found an "optimal" INOL/lift for each intensity?

I've seen calculations done on several forums (regarding Sheiko cycles) where the "sweet spot" seems to be 0.15 INOL/lift. This was probably coincidental, but interesting nonetheless.

Yeah, that's my suggestion. If I only had 10 weeks to either get the largest increase in strength or muscle mass, like you'd do in a research study, that would not be my first choice. I'd go nuts and push 'em to the breaking point. Why not, right? You've only got to worry about 10 weeks. Yeah, maybe a few people drop out but they can be excluded from the results anyway.

But if there was a critical competition exactly 1 year from now and I had 10 guys I didn't want to lose, I'd say that's a good place to start. There will be individual variation of course. Percentages and reps may go up or down from person to person and even from lift to lift.

Check back on that article. I updated it with a few more things last week. That new stuff is still a work in progress though. I'll eventually put up a new article when I sort it all out. Is there some optimum? Right now it seems like right on the edge of the ammonia breaking 60 umol/L is the place to be, which seems to be in line with Sheiko's recommendation to aim for 1-4 RIR.

It would be interesting to see how you could apply these principles to a simplified routine. Something that wouldn't require a meticulous approach to programming (less time spent on Excel sheets etc. haha).

Think of it like, the Pareto Principle of training (80:20 rule).

But that question alone, only brings up more questions.

If you were to take a modest, long-term approach to training... how would you progress? How would you program such progression?

I guess the only way you'd know is by trial and error...

Thank you for the back-and-forth conversation. The methodology behind your style of training is fascinating.